Talk:A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism

This article is a good likeness of Darwin's theory itself, silly nonsense
Reading in the thread below the justification for this article is the claim that A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism is not actually rooted in science. But I see nothing in the article refuting the peer reviewed science used to support the organization.

FOR EXAMPLE: Scientist Douglas Axe has peer reviewed published data that PROVES that random mutations could not possibly produce new proteins to account for complex life on earth. I see nothing in this article refuting that data.

Who does the author of this article think he's fooling? Who do you think would even care to read this article? 99.9% of the people who want to know more about "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" are people interested in the movement like myself. And you have just proved to me beyond all doubt Darwinism now needs propaganda for support. The idea that bacteria slowly turns into people isn't even a coherent idea, never made any sense to me. I wasn't aware there were hundreds, I think thousands of scientists openly agreeing with that thinking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.216.133.128 (talk) 02:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Please read Talk:Evolution/FAQ, Evidence of common descent and the "Arbitration Committee Decisions on Pseudoscience" header at the top of this talk page. This talk page is also not a general discussion forum (WP:NOTFORUM) so more specific article improvement suggestions are welcome.  Thanks, — Paleo  Neonate  – 14:48, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

POV tag
I'm adding a POV tag because this article is blatantly non-neutral. Sure it correctly treats intelligent desigas the fringe theory it is, but it goes way too far by "piling on" and giving completely undue emphasis to all of the criticisms. The "Responses" section is essentially a criticism ghetto dressed up with a neutral name. Most of it could be vastly tightened up. But what I'm most concerned about is the lead section, which is more than half about the criticisms and includes lengthy, unnecessary quotes that just so happen to be some of the most anti-ID content. This is completely inappropriate. The lead section can and should summarize the critics arguments in WP's own voice in a few sentences. This would not water down criticisms; rather, it would boost the article's credibility by taking away its hit-piece feel. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:43, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Put more simply: Just because something is a fringe theory doesn't mean neutrality goes out the window. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:48, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Please read the template at the top which says


 * "Scientific focus: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and its content on scientific and quasi-scientific topics will primarily reflect current mainstream scientific consensus.
 * Neutral point of view as applied to science: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience." Theroadislong (talk) 17:07, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with any of that in the slightest. Intelligent design is pseudoscience at best. That doesn't mean we should be larding up the article with an unlimited anti-ID diatribe without any regard for WP:NPV or WP:ATTACK. The anti-ID consensus can be described much more succinctly and neutrally. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:59, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Phrases like "this article is blatantly non-neutral" and "hit-piece" have been poisoned for years by extensive use by people who want to rewrite articles to make them treat ID equally or even favorably. When you use those phrases, it is no wonder that people take you for just another one in a long line.
 * So, when I feel that an article about a pseudoscience could be improved by replacing, say, a vicious attack by a more matter-of-fact statement, I avoid those phrases. You want to "make the style more encyclopedic and more concise", right? Maybe you could just make a concrete suggestion ("replace "XXX" by something more composed", "remove "YYY" because the paragraph above already says about the same"), as an example, and say that there are more passages that could be shortened, compressed, or calmed down a bit?
 * I, for one, do not know which sentences you mean. But the "Affiliations and credentials" part should be shorter. The second paragraph could be something like this:
 * "Several entries list the schools from which the signatories obtained their Ph.D. degrees, instead of their far less prestigious present affiliations, making them seem bigger than they are".
 * The details (names, schools) are in the source, they do not need to be made explicit here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:41, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The tag was inserted on a basis contrary to WP:PSCI and WP:GEVAL policy, which are much more specific than the WP:FRINGE guideline. These policies are part of WP:NPV policy, and WP:ATTACK clearly doesn't apply – the article sets out the statements of ID proponents, and shows the majority view response to these claims. As it should. As Hob Gadling says, specific points can be discussed when concrete suggestions are proposed, taking care to fully meet policy requirements including WP:WEIGHT. The suggestion for the "Affiliations and credentials" part looks promising. . . dave souza, talk 21:56, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I have been been in your position before on other articles, so I certainly sympathize with the urge to write off all POV complaints. (That doesn't mean we should.)
 * I don't have the comprehensive understanding of the sources to propose specific language at this time. However I would suggest we start with the lead section. Remove the Brauer & Brumbaugh and Alexander quotes and come up with a new, I don't know, three sentences that fairly summarizes all of the criticisms of the Dissent, not just the highlighted ones. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Dave, WP:PSCI and WP:GEVAL are fully consistent with WP:FRINGE and I'm neither taking any issue with those policies nor suggesting that we give any additional weight to pro-ID sources or viewpoints. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:26, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * If the problem with the responses is that they're a "criticism ghetto", then the solution is to incorporate the responses into the main body of the article. Guettarda (talk) 22:48, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that approach. My suggestion to tighten up the criticisms is more modest and can be done in tandem with that. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:23, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't think that NCSE is a problematic source. — Paleo  Neonate  – 05:12, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone has raised that issue. (?) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry for being unclear. My comment was related to the edit summary of  (also published by NCSE); when I reverted changes it was also before noticing this discussion.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 19:25, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * DrFleischman, since you don't have the comprehensive understanding of the sources to propose specific language at this time, why not raise your concerns on the talk page instead of using a tag which undermines the NPOV which you apparently support? I've added a recent and more general citation providing an overview of the basic criticisms, and as suggested have moved the Brauer & Brumbaugh and Alexander quotes out of the lead section. Always glad to help with improving the article. . dave souza, talk 13:07, 19 October 2017 (UTC) p.s. have left Alexander & Numbers in, as Ron Numbers is as neutral a source as any on creationism & ID. . . `dave souza, talk
 * Regarding the tag: Tags are actually not generally for concrete proposals. If I had canned language readyu to go I would simply be bold and make the changes. However, I have enough knowledge of the subject matter and Wikipedia community standards to know that we have a neutrality problem. The tag helps to recruit and motivate editors to participate and work toward consensus. I'd like it to stay until there is consensus that the issue is resolved. I believe you will find me to be quite reasonable. Just please stop edit warring over the tag and let it do its job. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Regarding the Alexander & Numbers quote: The neutrality of the source is not at issue. The issue is one of weight--not weight versus pro-ID sources, but weight versus other anti-ID sources, and the problem of "piling on." The quote appears to be redundant in the lead, and to any extent it's not, it quote should be readily paraphraseable and rolled in with other similar criticisms. Whether intended or not, right now the quote appears to be cherrypicked for its description of ID as a "fantasy of the faithful." Juicy language to be sure, and maybe even accurate, but it is also sensationalist, unencyclopedic, and unhelpful to the reader. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "Its signatories, who include historians and philosophers of science as well as scientists, are a vanishingly small fraction of the numbers of scientists and engineers qualified to sign it." Is this verified in the body, and if so, where? The "vanishingly small" language also reads as editorial to me; if verifiable, the word "tiny" should suffice. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:48, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The source actually does say "a vanishingly small percentage" we can put it in quote marks I suppose, so it's not in Wikipedia"s voice? Theroadislong (talk) 18:06, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "The source" - which source? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Here it's at the end of the next sentence maybe it needs to be at the end of each sentence. Theroadislong (talk) 18:35, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, appreciated. So "vanishingly small" is verifiable but I think "tiny" avoids the editorializing language. We aren't required to follow the same language as Muehlenbein; after all, we're an encyclopedia, whereas academic writers like Petto (the author of the "vanishingly small" language--I'll fix the ref) are often given more leeway. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:54, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If it's a quote, put it in quotes. That saves us the trouble of deciding whether "tiny" is an appropriate synonym, or whether "tiny" makes the level of support appear higher than it it. Guettarda (talk) 03:39, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This goes against our guidelines. The lead is supposed to summarize criticisms, not detail them. For this reason quotes should generally be avoided in lead sections whenever possible, and when there are many criticisms along the same lines, they should be summarized together. Also see WP:QUOTEFARM. Is anyone seriously concerned that "tiny" wouldn't adequately summarize the criticisms? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:05, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I would prefer the actual words or maybe "minuscule", tiny doesn't seem small enough. Theroadislong (talk) 16:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "Miniscule" seems a bit strong to me, but I'm ok with it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:08, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "Minuscule" is hardly too strong for less than 0.023 percent of the world's scientists, and why ask for sources for something already well sourced in the body text? . . dave souza, talk 06:31, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


 * 's most recent changes read problematic to me. I feel like this paragraph, which was originally supposed to describe the criticisms of the dissent, is being re-written as an essay adopting all of the arguments made by a few consensus sources about why the dissent is wrong. Put another way, it violates WP:IMPARTIAL. It's one thing to say, the dissent departs from the widely accepted consensus, and here's the consensus, and here are the consensus criticisms of the dissent. It's quite another for us to adopt those criticisms in our own voice. It's also undue. At least in the lead, we should conveying the central thrust of the criticisms rather than listing each and every argument made in one particular source. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:59, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, we should briefly summarise the main criticisms, and the same points are made by multiple sources. Just saying "detractors have criticised" is against NPOV, specifically WP:GEVAL and also stating facts as opinions. Please don't do that. . dave souza, talk 23:05, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand GEVAL, and I like your change to the "detractors" language. Now if you would please stop scolding me maybe we could make some additional progress. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:11, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * (And by the way, you're twisting GEVAL into something that it's not in order to make a straw man argument of your own. I never suggested or even hinted that we should give equal validity to the pro-ID viewpoint. I believe the policy you're looking for is WP:YESPOV (Avoid stating facts as opinions). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:47, 20 October 2017 (UTC))
 * Just to clarify, I referred to both parts of NPOV policy, as your edits had the effect presenting ID claims "along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity", in my opinion. As stated above, it's also important to avoid stating facts as opinions. . . dave souza, talk 21:51, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * As this edit indiecated, "its detractors" dismisses the mainstream view as "detractors". In another example, this edit completely changed the meaning, departing from what the source says: I've spelt it out now that the petition statement is a straw man, misrepresenting what evolution science says. This edit suggests you'd not read on in the source: also, note that source is a modern overview, already summarising the mainstream position presented in more detailed critiques. . . dave souza, talk 23:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed, — Paleo Neonate  – 23:31, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * In part you're missing my point, and in part you seem to be just picking on me. I already said, thank you for getting rid of the "detractors" language. I see no basis for your statement that the Petto (Muehlenbein) source is summarizing the mainstream position. If the mainstream position is that the Dissent is bunk then sure, that's the mainstream position. But that doesn't mean that all of Petto's arguments are the same as everyone else's. Plus, the Petto treatment of the Dissent is three pages long. We can't include in the lead everything Petto says about the Dissent, let alone everything every other criticizer says. The right approach is to go through the sources cited in the Responses section and summarize the criticisms that are shared by multiple sources. The wrong approach is to cherry-pick the sharpest criticisms and state them in WP's voice. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:38, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Dr. Fleischman, you started this recent discussion by accusing me of rewriting the paragraph in a problematic way "as an essay adopting all of the arguments made by a few consensus sources about why the dissent is wrong", and now you've twice complained that I'm picking on you? The points summarised using this overview source are also stated in various ways in A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism citing various older sources, and more generally in the #Responses section. We should summarise them concisely, not change "misrepresents evolutionary science" to "departed significantly from the overwhelming scientific consensus in support of the theory of evolution" as you did. The issue set out in the body of the article is that the petition is worded ambiguously so that scientists could read it as supporting the consensus with a focus on one specific mechanism rather than the multiple mechanisms incorporated in the theory. It's there in the body of the article, and shouldn't need sourcing in the lead, but just above this you've been asking for sources in the lead, at the same time as changing the lead to no longer fully summarise the article. . . . dave souza, talk 06:26, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

- This is a good point, but I think this is the wrong way round. The lead should summarise the content of the article body, which this does not. In this case, the lead gets it right, the article body does not. As it stands, the article amounts to a collection of he said/she said statements that never actually give a reader a proper overview. It over-weights the DI POV by giving it a stand-alone section to present its case. This is not consistent with WP:FRINGE. Guettarda (talk) 18:39, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Section break: sources needed to verify content

 * That may very well be true. I'm focused more on the lead section, where, the deeper I look, the more I see sources that kind-of-sort-of-but-don't verify the content. Take the first sentence for instance. I had, "The statement departed significantly from the overwhelming scientific consensus in support of the theory of evolution," with two sources that directly verified the content. This was replaced with, "The statement is misleading and ambiguous, using terms with multiple meanings," citing this source whose reliability is questionable for this point, that doesn't even verify the content, and that doesn't appear to represent a consensus view among the sources. The sentence is a stretch interpretation of the sources at best. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:01, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * In support of your edit, you now say it has "two sources that directly verified the content". The first source, as far as I can access it, is about Wells' Icons of Evolution and not about this petition. Please quote the words in that source that refer to this petition. The second source, New Mexico Doesn’t Want Your Kids to Know How Old the Earth Is – Mother Jones, is astonishingly enough about New Mex. science standards, not about the petition. Searches don't find the words "Darwinism", "random" or "complexity", so no evidence it discusses the petition at all. Please explain. . . dave souza, talk 23:33, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The sources say that there is an overwhelming scientific consensus accepting evolutionary theory. It's true, these sources do not say that the Dissent departs from the theory of evolution. I assumed that the sources cited in the body of our article would verify this. If they don't then we have a much bigger problem. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:06, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * For goodness sake, please read the article and its sources carefully, and stop WP:SYN on the basis of your preconceptions. . dave souza, talk 17:29, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't follow. What synthesis are you referring to? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:33, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * In this edit, you synthesised the incorrect claim that "The statement departed significantly from the overwhelming scientific consensus in support of the theory of evolution", using two sources which don't mention the statement. Try reading the #Statement section and its sources to work out where you went wrong: if you find that too difficult, I guess we could try to clarify our article, though it looks pretty straightforward to me. . dave souza, talk 21:08, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Like I said, the sources were not intended to verify that the Dissent varies from the overwhelming scientific consensus. It is intended to verify that there overwhelming scientific consensus accepts evolutionary theory. What you are calling synthesis is standard in lead section sentences, which often summarize multiple items in the article body. As an alternative, we could say, "The dissent departs significantly from evolutionary theory. There is overwhelming consensus among scientists for evolutionary theory." Would that satisfy you? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:10, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, you've still got it wrong. Continued after outdent.... dave souza, talk 22:42, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

The "dissent" statement is a straw man that is misrepresented by the DI as "dissent" from evolutionary theory. As Glen Branch says; [the statement] "could easily be agreed to by scientists who have no doubts about evolution itself, but dispute the exclusiveness of "Darwinism," that is, natural selection, when other mechanisms such as genetic drift and gene flow are being actively debated." "Darwinism" to the layman suggests evolution itself, or mainstream evolution theory, but to scientists is the specific mechanism of natural selection. The statement is "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged" That wording can be agreed by anyone –all scientists are skeptical, any claims get questioned, and any claim that only random mutation and natural selection affect the evolution would meet opposition within science. The evidence for natural selection, also called Darwinian theory, is of course carefully examined, and there are mainstream scientists who feel that other mechanisms should be given more weight. The statement is slightly clumsy, apparently innocuous, but when publicised in the context of the "Dissent from Darwinism" advert it takes on a new meaning. Do you see what I mean? . . dave souza, talk 23:09, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see what you mean, but what does this have to do with the synthesis issue we're discussing, or the verifiability issues I raised at the start of this subsection? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Step 1; you said you had "The statement departed significantly from.... the theory of evolution" with "two sources that directly verified the content", but they don't – that's synthesis. Step 2; since you now see what I mean, you realise your synthesised wording is wrong about the petition statement. Step 3; I'd changed the wording to cover two points, the first of which is "The statement is misleading and ambiguous, using terms with multiple meanings," citing this source which says "The signatories appear to attest to a statement about the ability of natural selection to "account for the complexity of life" — in other words, a statement about how evolution takes place. Given the anti-evolutionary tone of the introductory paragraphs, a layperson reading the advertisement might well assume that the signatories objected to evolution itself... Many scientists — including many associated with NCSE — could in good conscience sign a statement attesting to natural selection's not fully explaining the complexity of life!" Step 4; You now question the reliability and relevance of that source: step 3 shows it's directly relevant, and I assure you that the NCSE is a reliable expert source on ID. The same point is made by Petto in the paragraph that starts with "Like Behe's (1996) argument", but to understand that phrase you have to look back a few pages in the book to where that's covered, so for simplicity I added the NCSE source. The same point is made in the body text, cited to Gross PF, Forrest BC (2004). Creationism's Trojan horse, OUP. What made you say it "doesn't appear to represent a consensus view among the sources"? . . . dave souza, talk 07:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

This discussion has been stale for over 16 months. I'm going to remove the POV tag. Guettarda (talk) 21:36, 2 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I have re-added the POV tag because this article is blatantly biased, using highly prejudicial and even inflammatory language. It is a polemical piece, not an encyclopaedic one, reflecting the opinionated views of its author as if they were indisputable fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5CE:201:D8A0:F073:E121:FEE8:36A5 (talk) 16:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Tag bombing. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:18, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

List of Dissenters
Here's the list as of March 2, 2019, with the dead and a couple of duplicates removed: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1LY5ueeM63nbtnmo1om6rXu3G_cQIrE60yLhpq5YaoSg/edit?usp=sharing Thangalin (talk) 20:58, 2 March 2019 (UTC)


 * There was either a list or a category, maybe both, but they were deleted some years ago. The relevance of this list and its signers is probably much lower than it was back in the day. I doubt it's worth trying to recreate. Guettarda (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Wrong representation of information
"there were about 105 US biologists among the Darwin Dissenters, representing about 0.01% of the total number of US biologists that existed in 1999."

The link is used in a wrong way. The author mentions that there are 955,300 biology scientists in the US. Th he states that only 105 biologists are the Darwin Dissenters. The major problem is that the Dissent list includes only PhD's. Bachelors and masters were unable to sign the list so the author used wrong categories to support his point of view. This whole chapter must be corrected.--CapibaraMan (talk) 12:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Bachelors and masters were unable to sign I doubt, anyway, please provide a WP:RS for your claim.
 * From the article: At least one other signatory, Forrest Mims, has neither a PhD nor any formal academic training in science.
 * And Many of those who have signed the list are not currently active scientists, and some have never worked as scientists. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Here is the page which states that only PhDs and MD as well as professors can sign it.--CapibaraMan (talk) 12:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Do you know what it takes to show that not all swans are white?
 * Above you have been creamed. Take a deep breath and step back from the discussion.
 * If you think that Mims is the only one without a PhD, see https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bernard_d%27Abrera tgeorgescu (talk) 13:26, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Objection to Reversion
There is an article on Wikipedia called “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism”. However, there was not even the most basic information that has to be in a NEUTRAL article: Who they are!

When I wanted to add information about their identity and significance like; who they are, how many scientists, from which departments, from which universities etc. this entry has been reverted by “--Hob Gadling” These were just “information” about the group people who are the SUBJECT of THIS Article. You cannot write an ARTICLE about someone/something without first defining/describing them.

If we want to establish a bit amount of neutrality, the identity and the significance of the scientist of the subject of the article have to be included (I don’t even mention the gross tone of bias that permeates the entire article which gives the impression that the article has solely been written “in order to” discredit these group of people and not to cover a movement that has been a thing since years in the society) Otherwise, lets delete the article altogether. Wikipedia is not a place expressing opinions so blatantly yet having the delusion of being universal. Penalica (talk) 13:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC)


 * You quoted an unreliable source. Creationist sources lie, they lie, and they lie. Wikipedia cannot quote their bad reasoning and pretend it holds water. See WP:RS.
 * We will not help anti-science propagandists spread the misinformation that, e.g., a physicist is automatically qualified to judge evolutionary theory. See WP:FRINGE.
 * The article tells the basic facts: some religious fundies reject evolution, and because they do not have any valid reasons for that, they instead collected signatures from religious fundamentalist biological laymen who are experts for other things and have impressive-sounding credentials, in order to fool gullible laymen into believing that creationism has a point.
 * Any reader who wants more details can find them easily by following the links in the article. If someone wants to know who those irrelevant biological laymen are, they can read the "Dissent" document. --Hob Gadling (talk) 00:48, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You quoted an unreliable source. Creationist sources lie, they lie, and they lie. Wikipedia cannot quote their bad reasoning and pretend it holds water. See WP:RS.
 * I do not have any problem with WP:RS. The problem is that who gets to decide that discovery.org is unreliable. Hob Gadling?? Who writes ..”Creationist sources lie, they lie, and they lie…” This sentece just shows your bias (even hatred) against some group of people. They may lie or not, just any other group. Just like atheists, or democrats/republicans or doctors/engineers or scientists etc. You got the idea. That you make a blanket stattement againsts creationits shows blatantly how biased you are against some group of people which disqualifies you from getting to say what is reliable or not.
 * This is the page of “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism”. The very statement has originated from discovery.org and their affiliate websites. What is more natural to refer to these web sites when describing what they are saying?
 * By the way I could not find which references I had given in the previous versions. Was it me who could not find it since I am new to Wikipedia or are you so pathetic and militant and even terrified that you have deleted what I have written to hide even from the Wikipedia editors?
 *  We will not help anti-science propagandists spread the misinformation that, e.g., a physicist is automatically qualified to judge evolutionary theory. See WP:FRINGE. 
 * Who are WE? Are you wikipedia? You take Wikipedia hostage use it to spread your militant biased views. It is fringe or not, it does not matter. This is a statement more than 500 scientists have written. They might be most probably wrong. It does not matter. You have to be netural about them even if what they say is against the mainstream views. The first rule to be neutral against someone not calling them liars blanketly. You dont call anyone liars but just counter their ideas if you can.
 *  The article tells the basic facts: some religious fundies reject evolution, and because they do not have any valid reasons for that, they instead collected signatures from religious fundamentalist biological laymen who are experts for other things and have impressive-sounding credentials, in order to fool gullible laymen into believing that creationism has a point. 
 * This page is not about your or my opinions, if they are correct or not. This article is about some 500+ scientists who have dissent from Darwinisim. We have to draw the picture as clear as possible. At least some figures must be given about who they are and what they say. It is irrelevant if they are correct or not (Already enough discreditation has been attached to this article which in fact deserves POV Tag) That you hate such people and call them liars do not justifiy anything. Does “James G. Bentsen, Ph.D. Chemistry, Massachusetts Institute of Technology” sound layman to you? Is “Paul Ashby, Ph.D. Chemistry, Harvard University” religious fundamentalist? Is being a christian nullifies any arguements one is supporting despite his education and career?
 * Do they just quote passages from Bible to support their dissent? If you had had smallest idea about what they were saying, you would have seen that they were bringing very challenging topics which have not been adequately addressed within the sceintific community so far. Why do you consider people to be so gullible to be fooled by ideas which are vastly opposed in scientific community (it is already written in the article so) if any crumble of information about these high career scientists, God forbid, leaks from Wikipedia unless your majesty protects these poor Wikipedia readers from falling into trap. Even if they were so (gullible), would it be Hob Gadling’s responsibility to protect them? Even you you felt like so, would Wikipedia have to serve to your purpose. Is it your property? We are also part of Wikipedia and finance it.
 * I am neither christian nor care what Bible has to say about this issue. These scientists have something to say. However small group they might be, we have the responsibility to reflect what they say as they say. This article has already has an undue weight against them, thanks to some editors like you hiding themselves behind WP:RS and WP:FRINGE. My suggestion was to describe the group and giving them some fair weight and acknowledgement. Dont forget; it is well known nature of the scientific method that even for 100% established facts and laws which have been accepted unanimously since centuries, the scientists have been able to challenge them freely and they should be able to continue doing so. And yes with means of Wikipedia, which is supposed to be a neutral platform. They are not to be ridiculed, discredited, stigmatized as Christians or liars. Particularly when they have educaton and career with high reputation. I think they have enough knowledge to explain and contribute to science even Hob Gadling does not like that. (who has not read a single line about them)
 * Therefore, in order to avoid an “do” - “undo” fight against “Revolutionary Guards”, I would like to learn what the arbitration mechanism here is in order to decide what to be added to this article? Penalica (talk) 15:56, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Bold formatting doesn't help your presentation, you're proposing uncritical presentation of fringe creationist views based only on primary sources of their own publications which don't meet reliable source standards for fact checking and accuracy. Fringe or pseudoscientific claims have to be clearly described as such, and shown in the context of mainstream views of these claims. . . dave souza, talk 20:21, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem is that who gets to decide WP:RS decides that. I stopped reading that after the first mention of "bias". Read WP:LUNATIC, WP:YWAB and WP:WALLOFTEXT. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:26, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * These (WP:LUNATIC, WP:YWAB and WP:WALLOFTEXT.) are essays what you have sent. It is explicitly written there that they are not WP policies. Penalica (talk) 11:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * They explain the policies, especially WP:FRINGE, for those who do not understand them. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I picked another piece of the wall of text at random:
 * We will not help anti-science propagandists spread the misinformation that, e.g., a physicist is automatically qualified to judge evolutionary theory. See WP:FRINGE.
 * Who are WE? Are you wikipedia?
 * Every honest and knowledgeable person will refuse to help anti-science propagandists spread misinformation. That is "we". "We" will not use Wikipedia to hand a megaphone to an anti-science organization. That is the essence of WP:FRINGE. The examples in WP:YWAB illustrate that you are just the last in a long, long line of people who try to spread misinformation in Wikipedia articles by making it look as if science and bullshit are on the same level. Intelligent design and other forms of creationism have zero standing within science, and that is why they are described as such on Wikipedia. That is not an opinion, it is a fact. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You both are so fixed minded and focused at only not letting any crumble of information against your militant views in, you dont even see that it is not about the content of the ideas of these resenting scientists in the first place. How much ever as “Fringe” classified their views might be, it is about to represent correctly what they say. It does not mean endorsement. In an article, for example, about Jesus, among the others you are writing that he has born miraculoulsy without father according to Islam and Christianity. This claim is definitely non-scientific, let alone fringe science. Now should Wikipedia hide this information? Bible or Koran should be considered as non reliable source and not be referred to? Dont be ridiculous? That some views are correct or false is one thing. Representing it correctly, NEUTRALly and WITHOUT BIAS is another thing. Why are you unnecessarily so much sensible about these? There are also these flat earthers. Geoid shape of the Earth has already been scientifically proven. Nevertheless does it bother you that some guys are talking here and there about the concept of flat earth? Of course not. People are very very confident about the gloabl earth thats why no one gives a shit about them. On the other hand, that some ultra militant people like you struggling fervently to prevent even a hint of support for the opposing view on Evolution from slipping through gives the impression that, contrary to what you claim, you are not confident enough and dont have the trust that the Evolution is a scientific fact. In fact, these zealous efforts undermine the credibility of evolution in the public eye. Just be relaxed. It does no harm to discuss, to put foarward a dissenting view. Particularly within the context of scientific endeavor. Since scientific theories, by definition and its very nature, are never considered to be complete and fixed. Particularly, when the dissent comes from the scientists themselves. You can never ignore this. I dont know what your credentials are however you can never call bullshit some 500+ scientists among whom are even the members of  National Academy of Sciences. Most probably they have much more say than yourself on the issue. Dont forget. Just because you are atheist (perhaps not correct, just implication from the correspondance) does not relieve you of the obligation to justify what you stand for.  Penalica (talk) 11:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Right, it is our fault that creationism is not recognized as science by the scientific community.
 * Science is not done by collecting signatures, it is done by publishing studies in peer-reviewed journals. Creationists fail at this because their reasoning is really shitty. I am sorry that you do not know how science works, how reasoning works or how Wikipedia works, but those are things you need to take care of yourself.
 * you are writing that he has born miraculoulsy without father according to Islam and Christianity That is religion. Creationism is fake science; it is religion masquerading as science. It is a fraud for the purpose of circumventing the American laws forbidding the establishment of religion by the state, and teaching the camouflaged religion as science in public schools. Therefore it is handled like every other pseudoscience, for example, flat earth. Wikipedia will not treat unscientific beliefs as science. End of story. If you want creationism be treated as science, you need to make the scientific community accept it first. Wikipedia will follow. But that would be almost as quixotic as what you are doing now.
 * WP:FRINGE is Wikipedia policy, and you will not get around it no matter how much you type on this page. If you want to change the policy, Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories is the right place. But that would be almost as quixotic as what you are doing now. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:31, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You are unfortunately not even close to understand what I am talking about. Thes are just slogans, creationism, fringe science etc. Dissenters do not refer, even sloightest, to creationism in their appeal. What you are doing a fallacy if you know what that means Penalica (talk) 15:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Of course they do not refer to it! The goal is to pass religion off as science, therefore they cannot mention religion without defeating themselves. Read the reliable sources given in Creationism. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:25, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * What I meant was, they dont refer to religion as they state their objections to Evolution. They stay within the limits of science and such. Then, they build their own theory, Intelligent Design, where they walk with religion. This is considered as pseudoscience.
 * These two are seperate things. One may be correct in his objection to a theory and at the same time he may be wrong with his "correct" alternative theory. There is no contradiction here.
 * In the context of this article, for their dissents, these guys do not refer to religion. Penalica (talk) 12:06, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * They would not recognize the limits of science if the limits of science bit them in the ass. And Intelligent Design is not a theory. Stop using this page as a forum, it is not one. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:06, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You don't get a lot of points about the WP:RULES of Wikipedia. It would need several books to explain these points to you, and after reading those you could still make up your mind to disagree with them. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * First, I dont disagree with them. Some militant viewed guys distort the essence of the ideas written there arbitrarilly according to their world view. Unfortunately, this article is one of the blatant examples of this.
 * Secondly, please, I beg you, explain to me from your wisdom, not several books, just a few glimpse of hints about how I understand the WP:RULES incorrectly.
 * But slogans and word plays are not allowed. Penalica (talk) 15:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I will give you the basic rule of Wikipedia: we have to find to the best of our abilities what the academic mainstream says and then kowtow to it. See WP:ABIAS. The basis of Wikipedia is kowtowing to mainstream science and mainstream history. You may disagree with our choice, but that's what Wikipedia is. It is you who have a choice, Wikipedia doesn't.

Stated otherwise, Wikipedia is WP:RS-positivism and WP:CHOPSY-supremacism. For Wikipedia the gold standard is what they teach at Ivy League, that is the WP:NPOV view. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)